Commons:Deletion requests/File:Winterfest in Denali (d09c5a23-b358-4e1f-80fe-2bf12d2dc29d).jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Winterfest in Denali (d09c5a23-b358-4e1f-80fe-2bf12d2dc29d).jpg

This file was initially tagged by BMacZero as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Bear sculpture probably has additional copyright -- converting to DN for consensus on copyright on a snow sculpture. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I, for one, doubt that is copyrightable. Is there any legal precedent to say that every snowman, sandcastle, etc. has a copyright? If not, how is this different? Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• I see no reason why a snow sculpture wouldn't be copyrightable. Is it less deserving of protection than a stone sculpture just because of the material it's made out of? As far as I can tell, there is no legal precedent either for or against copyright on snow sculptures, so that argument cuts both ways. The only possible exception I found that could apply is that copyright only applies to "fixed" and "reproducible" media - a temporary installment isn't eligible. However, most sources seem to agree that simply taking a photograph of the installment renders the installment itself "fixed" and "reproducible". – BMacZero (🗩) 06:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• There is some related discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#An_interesting_"joint_work"_example. clindberg (talk · contribs) quotes the Copyright Office as saying, in part, "the fact that uncopyrightable material has been fixed through reproduction does not make the underlying material copyrightable. For example, a photograph of a fireworks display may be a copyrightable fixation of the pho- tographic image, but the fireworks themselves do not constitute copyrightable subject matter." That lends credence to snow sculptures not being eligible for copyright, though example of fireworks is certainly far more temporary that a snow sculpture. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of a court case speaking directly on the matter, at least in the U.S. It *could* be copyrightable... but it's a gray area and could depend on different circumstances. Copyright is usually on the precise contours and outlines, but if the sun melts part of it, or new snow falls, or wind alters things... the result may not be as copyrightable (and did that already happen before this photograph?), and a court would have to determine what "fixed, tangible medium" really means in this case. Until there is such a case (showing a real problem that people have to be aware of), it's a very edgy type of deletion. What would the difference be between this and a snowman made by kids? If you place enough twigs in enough places that probably qualifies for an arrangement copyright, even if it's just a couple of globes placed on top of each other. An ice sculpture probably is different, as it's a bit more impervious to change, but I'm not sure we even have a U.S. ruling on that (though a German ruling basically assumed that copyright existed, but it also qualified as "permanent" for freedom of panorama, since it was on display its entire lifetime even though the lifetime was brief). There is a legal opinion out there that ice sculpture would be copyrightable in the U.S., but even that was not a court case (though it's a very reasonable opinion). It would come down to what a court determines is "temporary" -- the law's wording could mean that if it changes within seconds, it's not copyrightable, but if it keeps its form over a day or so at least, it could be (and nobody could copy that exact contour). Or it could be a longer time frame than that. It's not the photograph that makes it copyrightable; it's the photograph that documents the situation such that a "fixed, tangible medium" can be determined. In general, when deleting stuff I prefer to be able to point to a relevant court case or decision which shows there is a real legal issue involved, rather than trying to guess where copyright may or may not extend. So I'd probably lean  Keep here given the lack of definite precedent. Ice sculpture probably is copyrightable, fireworks definitely are not, and somewhere in between there is a line which can be crossed, but I would rather not delete stuff that nobody in the history of copyright has been convicted for. This one in particular is a PD-USGov photo, and the sculpture itself might also fall under that type of thing, depending on the circumstances it was made under. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Kept: per User:Clindberg. P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)